Good morning, and thank you for joining us to discuss UGE's fourth quarter and fiscal 2023 financial results for the period ending December 31st, 2023. On the call today we have UGE CEO Nick Blitterswyk and UGE CFO Stephanie Bird. During the call, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. We've collected investor questions via email, which can also submit your questions through the Q&A tab in the web portal at any time, and management will answer them following their prepared remarks. Next slide, please. Before management discusses the results, I'd like to remind everyone that certain statements in this call may be forward-looking in nature. These include statements involving known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements. For caveats about forward-looking statements and risk factors, please see our MD&A for the fiscal year ending December 31st, 2023, which can be found on our company's profile at SEDAR+ and on the company's website. I will now pass the call over to UGE CFO Stephanie Bird. Stephanie? Thanks, Marcel. Good morning and welcome, everyone, to the call. For today's webinar covering fourth quarter and fiscal 2023 results, Nick will begin by summarizing key business and industry highlights for the quarter and the year. I will then run through our financial highlights before handing things back over to Nick to wrap things up before we take questions. As a reminder, you can submit a question through the portal on the left-hand side of your screen, and we will run through them after our prepared remarks. As always, our goal is to be mindful of your time and keep this webinar concise and to the point. We will be speaking at a relatively high level and focusing on areas that we feel are most important to understanding our business and financial results. We also want to remind our listeners that we report in U.S. dollars, so the results in this webinar are represented in U.S. dollars as well, unless we state otherwise. With that, let's start by talking about our key business results from the fourth quarter and during the fiscal year. Nick? Thanks, Stephanie, and good morning, everyone. It has been a little while since our last webinar, but we were looking forward to another opportunity to connect with you all. A lot has happened in the past 5 months since our Q3s were released, as well as in the past 16 months since the beginning of 2023. UGE has grown significantly in that time frame as our evolution into a full life cycle developer has taken shape. To start off with today, I want to discuss our project remapping exercise that we introduced in our Q3 webinar last November. In essence, as we dealt with industry-wide delays while updating our systems and gaining experience from additional projects and new members on our team, we believed it was prudent for us to update our project schedules. The updated project timelines have now been worked into our Q4 supplemental disclosure file, which is available on our website in the financial filing section. Our updated systems and the remapping exercise itself have allowed us much better visibility and tracking of our projects. Since starting the exercise and working through our development pipeline sequentially, we have been monitoring our progress versus the updates, and we've been really pleased with how well we are tracking. Having better data has also allowed us to start identifying ways to accelerate timelines, which we are confident is going to lead to shorter development timelines going forward compared with the industry at large and our past performance. We are now at the point where we are working against these schedules, ensuring we meet expectations going forward. We have roughly half a year of experience now with our oldest remapped projects and believe we are at the point where projects are seeing timelines move forward just as much as they move backwards, based primarily on items outside of our control. I wanted to touch on a couple other important areas of the business, starting with domestic content. As you may recall, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included a provision whereby you could secure an additional 10% investment tax credit adder on top of the 30% baseline, in effect making your new baseline 40% once domestic supply chains developed. On this front, we are excited to announce that we have just signed a master service agreement with what we believe is the first Tier 1 solar panel manufacturer operating in the distributed generation space to have domestic supply available. This makes UGE one of the first developers in our space to have secured domestic content. We therefore expect to qualify for the domestic content adder on top of any other adders that we qualify for on all future NTPs. I also want to touch on our asset management function, which we have been developing as our portfolio scales up. Of course, our operating portfolio was in its infancy in early 2023, but as it has grown, it became important to invest resources in this area of the business. We've been very happy with the boost in overall system performance since reallocating resources to lead and grow this area of the business. I'll briefly highlight that in our November webinar, we mentioned that one of our larger systems was offline due to an issue with one of the electronic components. That system was back online during Q1 of this year, and we are working with the manufacturer and the insurance to recover our losses for the time the system was offline. Conditions in our industry continue to be robust. 2023 saw solar provide more than 50% of all new energy capacity installed during the year in the U.S. for the first time. We have mentioned before that battery storage has passed its inflection point and touted how in 2022 there was more new battery storage capacity installed than there was new natural gas capacity. Well, within 2023, that ratio was almost 10 to 1 as battery storage becomes a meaningful part of the overall energy mix. Interconnection continues to be the biggest impediment to growth within our industry as utilities struggle to keep up with the growth in solar and battery storage. That said, we are starting to see progress in how new project applications are treated and know that this is a major priority of the Biden administration. While streamlining this will take time, we're at least happy with the attention it is getting and the proposals being put forth. I should also mention that in the meantime, we continue to believe that distributed generation, or DG, can play an outsized role in the energy transition given that our projects typically only affect the local distribution grid and not transmission. We will continue to home in on development opportunities that can work well within the current landscape. Before turning the presentation over to Stephanie, I wanted to cover the growth in our operating portfolio and backlog making use of the updated supplemental disclosure file I mentioned previously. On this first slide, we show our operating portfolio by way of the green dots at different time frames. We ended 2022 with our first 2.3 MW of projects operational, and we saw that more than double in 2023 to reach 4.8 MW. So far this year, we've grown it further to 6.6 MW where it stands now. Looking forward, we expect our operating portfolio to grow approximately five-fold this year. This is based on projects for which we have already announced NTP and are in various stages of construction. Based on an estimated average of $3 per watt fair market value, that means we expect to be operating approximately $75 million of projects by the end of this year. We are really looking forward to seeing this portfolio take shape in the months to come. In addition, we will continue to hit NTP on additional projects. We have made the note before that within our industry, once a project hits NTP, it is considered de-risked and holds almost as much value as a project at COD. We look forward to seeing our portfolio gain considerable more size in 2025. We also have a significant uptick in 2025 NTPs as we expect some of the bets we made on markets like Pennsylvania and California will come to fruition in that time frame and drive even greater growth in 2026 CODs. Now, we realize that this is behind our original goals, but we are happy with how we are scaling our business and for what the future holds. Our medium-term goals remain to both surpass 100 MW of operating capacity as well as to begin deploying 100 MW of projects per year and can see both occurring within just the next few years. Lastly, this table will look familiar to many of you that have been following us over time as it lists our development pipeline by stage and comes from our MD&A. A few highlights that I will share. First, I will highlight our huge growth in stage 3.0 over the course of 2023. There is a story behind that, which is that while opportunity continues to abound, we have become increasingly conservative over the last couple of years in terms of when we move a project into stage 3.1 and count it as backlog. In fact, during Q1, we actually broke stage 3.0 into two stages to better delineate between projects in that stage and look forward to sharing more information on that in coming quarters. Suffice it to say, though, that we are excited about a number of projects in that bucket. Second is to mention the impact that our remapping exercise had on decreasing our backlog slightly from Q3 to Q4. Many of the projects that accounted for the change shifted back to stage 3.0 as we had to wait for items outside of our control to take shape, while others we determined we no longer wished to develop after closer inspection. Lastly, I'll mention the growth of in-construction assets, which has continued to ramp up significantly within 2024 as we work to build out all of the projects in stage 3.3 and beyond this year. Now, with that, let me turn things over to Stephanie to talk about our financial statements. Thank you, Nick. I'm going to review a few key items, starting with our fiscal year result and then our Q4 financial results. However, looking at this slide and starting with the elephant in the room, that restatement header above 2022. As you may recall, under IFRS, we treat our tax equity financing as debt, and there are some pretty complicated models that underlie the calculations of what that debt should be. I want to stress that it is not actually debt, but rather it is treated as debt under IFRS. The model calculations become more complex when contributions to the value of a project receiving a tax equity investment are government grants. In prior years, these grants had not been adjusted and caused the value of the debt to be amortized up, and it does not make sense to take a debt value above the contributed amount. As our portfolio is growing, this became more apparent and caused a reassessment of assumptions. It was determined that the debt relating to tax equity partnerships had been overstated, and other income related to that debt amortization was also overstated. This is all a non-cash adjustment, which has the effect of reducing debt as well as other income in 2022 and before. Also, as we previously noted in our Q3 financial statements, it was determined that there were three leases that were required to have been recorded in 2022 when they were initially signed, which is again a non-cash item but captured within the restatement. Now on to the fiscal 2023. As our operating portfolio grew from 2.3MW to 4.8 MW of installed capacity, energy generation was 3.7 GWh compared to 1.4 GWh in fiscal 2022. This translated into $436,000 of energy generation revenue compared with $350,000 in fiscal 2022. The reason that the growth of power generation revenue did not track growth in energy production is predominantly due to two factors. The first is that our Smithville, Texas project has a lower offtake rate than our other operational projects and came online at the beginning of the year. This was offset by one of our highest offtake rate projects being offline since August as a result of a significant manufacturer component defect. As Nick mentioned earlier, this project is now back online, and we are seeking to recover some amount of our lost revenue. Total revenue for 2023 was $1.2 million versus $3.8 million in fiscal 2022 as we see our external EPC and engineering services revenues wind down in order for us to focus on our own projects. Overall gross margin for fiscal 2023 was 56% compared to 36% in fiscal 2022. You can see on this page that the margins vary between our service lines. Energy generation margin was strong at 95% versus 93% in 2022. Gross margins on our remaining EPC revenue were 13% in 2023 versus 28% in 2022. There remains just one outstanding long-running government project that we expect to fully close out in 2024. Energy services margins were 52% in 2023 versus 42% in 2022 as a result of the mix of work engaged. Operating expenses for fiscal 2023 were $12.7 million, a 67% increase versus fiscal 2022's $7.6 million. The increase was largely due to a $2.6 million increase in staffing-related costs as we stabilize our full lifecycle development platform. The headcount-related costs had a carry-on effect to increase corporate and office expense by $552,000. Finally, during 2023, non-capitalized development costs were $1.3 million versus just $424,000 in 2022, which speaks to our increasing development activity. Adjusted EBITDA during fiscal 2023 decreased 75% to negative $9.3 million compared to negative $4.9 million in fiscal 2022. Net loss for the fiscal year 2023 was $14.1 million, a 113% decrease versus fiscal 2022's $6.6 million loss. While revenue remains thin as projects are built out, these changes are almost entirely due to the changes in the operating expenses already noted. As a reminder, we are in the process of transitioning from a one-time revenue model to a recurring revenue model, and losses are expected until the company portfolio reaches a larger scale of project deployments and operational projects. While this transition occurs, building out projects creates positive cash flows through the retention of what we refer to as a developer surplus. This is starting to become more noticeable on our cash flow statement as our deployments scale up. Turning to the results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2023, UGE's energy generating assets produced 626 MWh versus 330 MWh in Q4 2022. This translated into $34,000 of revenue for the quarter versus $83,000 in 2022. It's here that you can best see the impact I mentioned with the full year results. The Smithville project has added considerably to our energy production. However, its comparatively low PPA rate has caused a reduction in the revenue compared with Q4 2022, while one of our highest rate projects that contributed to the 2022 production figures was offline. As we focus our own project development, revenue from external EPC agreements was $62,000, a 91% decrease from 2022, and revenue from energy services was $47,000, an 83% decrease from 2022. Our lowest energy generation quarter, together with declining revenue in both EPC and engineering services, means that a small change in the cost of goods sold has a substantial impact on the margins for each segment. As we went through our year-end reconciliations, there were certain items that were individually immaterial throughout the year but required an adjustment between business segments in Q4, resulting in margins for our final quarter that are unusual while the overall margins for the year are appropriate. Operating expenses for Q4 2023 were $3.5 million, a 54% increase versus $2.3 million in Q4 2022. The increase is consistent with the annual results and predominantly related to our increased headcount and office expenses together with non-capitalizable development costs. Adjusted EBITDA during Q4 2023 decreased 36% to -$2.5 million compared to -$1.6 million in Q4 2022. Net loss for Q4 2023 was $4.1 million versus Q4 2022 net loss of $2.3 million. These decreases are consistent with my commentary on the annual results. Moving to the next slide, you can see that it's growing you can see that the balance sheet is growing as projects progress through our backlog, significantly impacting our ROU assets and all the PPE-related balance sheet accounts together with their associated debt. With 18.2 MW hitting NTP in 2023 and two projects being put into operations, these increases were expected. Moving to the next slide, as of December 31st, 2023, UGE had $2.4 million of cash and a working capital deficit of $14.9 million. With respect to our cash balance, we have some remnant cash from external engineering and EPC contracts as well as our core continuing cash flow sources of developer surplus payments and operating solar facilities. Our core continuing cash flows are not yet at the scale to support company-wide positive net cash flow, so we continue to scale up our development efforts. The backlog matures to yield more projects in deployment. Cash inflows from the Developer Surplus in particular will provide us with improved stability in our cash balance. In the meantime, we supplement our cash with Green Bond and development capital financing. The working capital deficit has significantly increased year over year and even since Q3. This is largely due to two changes arising in Q4. The first change was that we adjusted the structure of underlying collateral with one of our developer financing sources away from specific projects for which we had secured long-term financing and towards a more broad-based approach. This shifted the presentation from long-term to short-term, even though the use of capital remained largely the same. The second regards a change in how we record long-term prepaids and deposits. Previously, several components had been classified as current until the associated payable was expunged, while current treatment sees them booked to long-term assets from the outset. Next slide, please. Project debt, together with tax equity financing as expected, increased from $15.6 million in 2022 to $56.5 million at December 31st, 2023, as a result of the growth of our operating assets and facilities under construction. Operating debt decreased from $2.6 million exiting fiscal 2022 to $2.3 million at the end of the reported year, largely as a result of partial repayment of the convertible note in October. Lease liabilities increased from $22.5 million to $24 million as a result of 17 net new leases in the year. That concludes my prepared remarks, and I will turn the call back to Nick. Thanks, Stephanie. We want to thank everyone for joining us here today and for joining us on this journey as we continue scaling to meet our long-term goals. With that, we'll wrap up the prepared remarks by pointing you to where you can find more information. As mentioned earlier, our website is regularly updated. It It contains all of our financial filings and other updates. You can also find our financial filings on SEDAR+. You can visit Sophic Capital's website for additional information and follow us on Twitter to get links to announcements and other media. Thanks again for tuning in today. Marcel, back to you. Thank you, Nick and Stephanie. We've collected the questions investors have submitted since issuing the financial results, and we've also collected the questions submitted through the webinar's Q&A tab. We'd like to thank participants for your questions. Moving to our first question. The first question is from Sameer Joshi at H.C. Wainwright. Supplemental information suggests that the stages 3.1 through 5 backlog moved from about 348 MW to 320 MW. What is management's level of confidence in this updated backlog? Yeah, I'd say we have a very good degree of confidence in that, Sameer. Like mentioned, the machine hasn't stopped in terms of developing our projects and adding new projects to our pipeline, but we did take a much more conservative approach and a much more detailed approach with the remapping exercise. And so we're excited to work these projects through the pipeline and see these come to fruition in the coming quarters and years. His next question is, was there any change to the first quarter 2023 to third quarter 2023 financial statements similar to the amendments to December 31st, 2022 statements? Stephanie, I'll let you take that one. Sure. Actually, if you look in the MD&A that's out there, the two spots where this impacted the income statement were in financing costs as well as in, there's actually a separate line for the tax equity that flows through other income. Under the quarterly chart, it gives you exactly the difference. It gives you exactly what was reported there from prior years. Sameer's third question is, while we understand that UGE's focus is mainly on community solar, is the company positioning or is it positioned to capitalize on opportunities emanating from growth in energy, power demand, from the crypto and AI-related data center space? Yeah, I would say at a high level, the answer is yes. There's obviously a lot of activity there. In the last couple of quarters in particular, there's been a lot of changes to what utilities are forecasting for energy demand, and a lot of that comes down to data centers, AI, that type of industry. I think we're really well placed to help solve some of those issues. Yes, that is on our radar and part of our development plan. Next question has come from Nicholas Boychuk at Cormark. Can you please expand on your comfort with the updated COD estimates for the projects in the pipeline and backlog, and what work was done to clarify those timelines? Yeah, the level of confidence, I'll reaffirm what I mentioned in the first question about us feeling really good about that. Now, I will say within our industry, we're often kind of dancing with an elephant in terms of a utility, and sometimes they will push things back a month or something like that. But we feel we've put in the right degree of conservatism in those numbers and have a good grasp on how long things will take in each of our markets. So at a high level, we feel really good about we feel really good about that. I think the second half of the question was about sort of the work that went into that. We mentioned on our Q3s that, again, depending on how you measure it, there's anywhere from 300-700 unique steps that a project goes through as we move that project from origination all the way through to commercial operation. So while we've always known what those steps are, we went into a lot more detail. We had updated our systems over the last one system, call it 6 months ago, another system, maybe more like 15 months ago. And that's really given us a lot more control over the interdependencies between these steps, the data analysis around the timeline of these steps, etc. So it's been really a very rigorous process, and that's ultimately why we hadn't updated our supplemental disclosure since last August. But we're really excited about how it's trending so far. I mean, we're now, of course, 4 months into 2024. We had started that process in, I guess, it was early fall of last year if I'm not mistaken. And so we've had time to see how projects are tracking versus that. And like I said in my prepared remarks, we're seeing opportunities where projects come forward, I think roughly about the same level as when things shift backwards. So we understand it's really important for us to regain investor confidence to meet or exceed expectations, and that's what we're looking to do going forward. His next question is, Can you elaborate on the delays for the material amount of megawatts from 2025 into 2026 and 2027, and what gives you confidence that they'll be developed on the new schedule? So at a high level, there are some larger buckets in there. For example, Massachusetts storage projects that we've been developing where we got back interconnection timelines, which were really much slower than expected, and that's actually a problem not unique to Massachusetts, but accentuated in Massachusetts. There's also been, as many of you will know, we had, in retrospect, outsized exuberance around the timeline of some of the new community solar programs coming to fruition, like California and Pennsylvania as two examples. However, since then, we've seen real progress in terms of those timelines, and also we've found real alternatives in some cases to community solar that allows us to move things at a better pace. So that's really what we're looking to do here, is set timelines that we can meet or beat, and that's what we'll look to do going forward. Okay. And his final question is, with the delays in projects reaching operation, does it change your thoughts on potentially selling operating or late-stage construction projects to highlight the value of what's to come? I don't think. I mean, I think the short answer to that is no. I don't think that it specifically changes that equation. I think, as we've mentioned in past quarters, we really believe in the value of the projects and the portfolio. And to the degree that there's a discrepancy, which I think it's obvious that we believe there is right now between company value and project level sorry, project value, then that's certainly something that we need to consider among any other considerations too. So I think ultimately, what matters is as we bring projects to fruition, they have very real value both to the company and to the industry, and it gives us more opportunities to fund those projects, to potentially sell projects, etc. So I think the opportunities are opening up for us here as a portfolio matures. Okay. Moving on, this is kind of an aggregation of a bunch of investors asking questions, so I'll just group them all here. Can you explain what type of alternatives UGE has to financing projects, and would you also consider buying back shares? So in terms of the alternatives of financing projects, I think there's 3 main high-level ones that we leverage pretty frequently, right? So one is we talk about the developer surplus that we are typically capturing from projects as we build them out. And really, that's the excess of funds from financing projects through the project-level debt and the tax equity minus the actual cost to develop that project. And so as we're building out more projects, those cash flows start to increase, even though they don't hit the income statement. So it can be a little bit tricky to track that, but that's very real. Number 2 is, of course, we've been a very active green bond participant and feel like that market is still very much open to us. And we had completed a few issuances in each of 2022 and 2023. And so I think that's a good kind of medium-term source of capital for us. And then lastly is we do have access to development capital as well, which typically tends to be a bit on the shorter-term perspective, but allows us to fund various types of expenses that help us get those projects into construction and start drawing on construction financing and then eventually flip that into permanent financing and the tax equity as well. So I know that it's not readily apparent on the income statement since the income statement really isn't affected until those projects are operational and start generating those decades of recurring revenue. But the cash flow of the business is changing pretty significantly as the portfolio matures here. Okay. Our next question is kind of an aggregation of several questions being asked. As timelines get pushed out, are you looking to reduce operating expenses? So a couple of things on that. Number one is we actually if you do look at our headcount that and I know that in our investor deck, we've referred to how many folks we have on our team and so on. But we did actually get probably a little bit out of in front of our skis in I think it was probably mid-2023, and our headcount is down a little bit since then. So we have right-sized a little bit there to align with the timing constraints of our portfolio. So on that aspect, the answer is yes. I think on the other hand, I'll just mention again that the volume of projects that we're developing. We still see a future here a few years out from now where we're deploying 100 MW of projects per year, and that being a value of, again, using that very rough $3 per watt estimate of $300 million per year. We're really originating and developing those projects now. So for us to realize that vision, we need to stay focused on the medium and long-term here and work towards those types of levels. So from that perspective, I think the right-sizing, if you will, that was the term used in that question, Marcel, is not a drastic thing. We think that this is sort of tweaking around the margins to make sure we have the right-sized team for the opportunity at large here. Okay. The next question is, can you talk about the backlog by geographic regions? It seems like a lot of New York and Maine down and lower margin, Maine battery projects are up. Can you give us that type of color as well as California and Pennsylvania? Yeah, I'll touch on that at a high level. And I'll admit that I'm speaking here from memory, but I have a pretty good grasp, of course, on some of the main markets that we're in, right? So in kind of moving from, let's say, the northeast down and around to California, so Maine's been an active market for us the last few years, but the Maine market really kind of put some constraints on what you can do in Maine. In essence, a community solar project there now is capped at 1 MW AC for a new project, and that's a bit smaller for us going forward. So we do have opportunity there. We are building out projects there right now. You can see a little bit less pipeline activity there going forward. The Massachusetts market, which has some solar for us but a lot of battery storage. What's happened there I mentioned already in one of the first questions: that the interconnection timelines in Massachusetts have really been dragged out. And then in addition to that, there's something called the Clean Peak Standard, which is partly what we've been developing those battery storage projects around. And the state itself will say that that program hasn't quite taken shape the way that they anticipated and is getting a review right now. And so that's played a little bit into our timelines and some projects there as well, as well as that kind of overall interconnection challenges in that market. Coming down from there, New York, of course, has been a good market for us for a long time. We have our kind of greater New York City area projects, which because they're rooftop, they tend to be a bit smaller, but still an active market for us. We're building several projects here right now and will continue to be. And then upstate New York, we're starting to add more or some of our ground-mount projects in upstate New York are starting to come to fruition. And I expect that'll be a regular trend in the coming years. New York State has a lot of support for community solar and for renewable energy in general. New Jersey introduced their community solar program. The first window opened up in November of last year. As some folks have mentioned elsewhere and I think reached out to us on, what ended up happening is because the program window actually opened, I think, technically slightly before the program was finalized. It was right around the same time frame. And so what that meant was projects above 1 megawatt couldn't get interconnection approval before that window because that's about a four-month process in New Jersey. And so that meant that a lot of our New Jersey projects couldn't get approved in the November 2023 window, but we are planning on submitting those in the June 2024 window. And so we're still excited about New Jersey, but also only taking a little bit more conservative approach in terms of additional pipeline adds there going forward. I promise there's not too many more states I'll touch on here, but Maryland, we're building in right now. We're excited about that market. We have another NTP coming up later this year in Maryland. And so that's also a state that upsized their maximum community solar project from 2 MW AC to 5 MW AC. I'll touch on Texas, which is, it's kind of in some ways the model that we wish the whole country would take for interconnection, which is generally referred to as Connect and Manage. So it's just pretty much every other state takes a much more worst-case scenario approach to interconnection, whereas Texas says, "Hey, you can connect, and you might get curtailed at times where the grid is under stress," etc., which is a small percentage of the time. Texas, both on the solar and the battery storage side, is a Tier 1, our Tier 1 markets for us and ones we're focused on. We're building a solar project there right now. We have a battery storage project in Texas which has an NTP date. I want to say it's early 2025. I would need to confirm that from the supplemental disclosure, but we're expecting solar and battery storage to grow in Texas going forward. Then lastly, I'll touch on California. California, there is a mandate there to roll out a new community solar program. I believe it's July of this year, so it's coming up fairly soon. There were some, and we've been lining up a lot of projects ahead of time. In fact, a lot of our stage 3.0 bucket is California-based, and you wouldn't see that from the supplemental disclosure, but we have been placing a lot of bets on that market. There were some waves made a couple of months ago by kind of a lawyer hired by, I believe it was the California Public Utilities Commission, on the shape of the new community solar program. And so there is uncertainty here in terms of how that totally gets finalized, but we are expecting to get a lot of news on that the next few months here, and hopefully not just news, but a finalized program. So we have a lot of good bets: solar, battery storage. I will also say that California had a bit of a reform in terms of the interconnection process for distributed generation assets that came out earlier this year too. So California, long-term I could go on and on about California. There's also a mandate that 100% of retail energy will need to be renewable energy. I want to confirm what date that is, but 2035, give or take five years. So there's a lot of good things happening in California, so do expect that to become a good market for us going forward. So that's a very long-winded answer. I'm happy to take any follow-ups or take that offline as well. Obviously, there's some other states that we're in too. Can you talk about or touch upon the economics of battery versus solar? Yeah. So it definitely varies by market. I think that the very rough level answer to that is that they're pretty similar in terms of if you take a 1 MW solar project versus a 1 MW battery storage project, the CapEx isn't going to be that different. The fair market value is not going to be too different. The size of revenue per MW is not going to be that different. These things do vary a lot by market. Stephanie talked about, for example, hey, one New York project being offline versus one Texas project being online and what that did to revenue per MWh. So these are all considerations. But yeah, at a high level, they have somewhat similar economics. The type of revenue, I'll just mention, tends to be more variable in terms of battery storage, merchant or quasi-merchant in some cases. There is some more nuanced differences between the two, but I think at a high level, it's not too different. Okay. We have some investors that joined the call late, and they're asking questions that have already been answered. So I would encourage investors that came into the call late to listen to the replay for your answers. And there are no further questions at this.